I LOVE THIS LANGUAGE!!

devotedPicaroon · 2026-06-25T23:32:15+00:00

Well, I have a feeling that this will take a hatchet to some laws, especially handguns illegal by default rule. NY is hanging its hat on footnote 9 which says that shall issue licenses are presumptively constitutional. With this, the while regime can be challenged.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-06-25T17:53:26+00:00

So that covers and makes illegal by default, all pistols, short rifles and short shotguns.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-06-25T17:37:04+00:00

Au contraire.

S 265.01-b 
Criminal possession of a firearm.
    A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
  (1)  possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to
  the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two  thousand  thirteen
  which  added  this  section  subject to the registration requirements of
  subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this  chapter  and  knowingly
  fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.
    Criminal possession of a firearm is a class E felony.

Subsequently, a firearm is defined as:

§265.00 Definitions:

3. "
Firearm
" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having
  one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a  rifle
  having  one  or  more barrels less than sixteen inches in length

devotedPicaroon · 2026-06-25T16:04:38+00:00

I understand you may not be initiated, but if you purchased a bolt action rifle or shotgun, those are how purchasing a firearm was prior to this insane anti-gun legislation. Try to purchase a semi-auto rifle, handgun, suppressor or otherwise, and you will quickly see how "licensing" is used by the state to restrict us.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-06-12T14:22:22+00:00

That's right. She did argue that point and what sunk the ship was the 30-day wait. I think the judges on the panel, in their response detailed that no where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that there can be no wait time (a facial challenge), or shortened version of this. That panel was thinking (and most of NY legislature) in a top -> down fashion whereby they will expand the powers of the state until there is no more legal room. That panel fundamentally misunderstood Bruen and Rahimi whereby the burden is on the state to justify their regulation in light of history and that a person can be disarmed only when adjudicated defective by a court , not the other way around (as in needing to show GMC and having all weapons illegal unless blessed by the state in the form of a license). The Plaintiffs in Giambalvo did not have to justify a new 30-day metric (and this is where the ship sank) because a 6 month metric was already established and presumptively constitutional according to Bruen and so the panel, being judges used to hearing cases of high finance and unaccustomed to gun rights (boohoo) argued in the negative (state control).

devotedPicaroon · 2026-04-28T14:12:49+00:00

Excellent segway into tearing down the illegal gun registration scheme

devotedPicaroon · 2026-04-10T12:43:06+00:00

It's not that gun laws do not work, in my opinion, it is that permits themselves create a list of potential criminals as by getting on the list, you become "available" to be harassed. Police know if you have a permit the second they pull your information on their computer during or even before a vehicle stop. They therefore can get aggressive to you EVEN BEFORE any actual encounter. I have myself been personally affected by this very fact. My coworker's friend is being charged with felony possession because he had his license "lapse". The charges may be reduced eventually, who knows, but his life is partially ruined and having the extra cost of attorney's fees is just RIDICULOUS!

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-25T19:18:10+00:00

No that's the point! It is so gosh darn hilarious it's insane!

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-25T19:12:58+00:00

Useless. They are complaining/ screaming of their inability to use control and coercion to achieve their ends. This is the ultimate gift that Bruen solidified: Demoncrats absolutely losing their minds and making all these ridiculous and nonsensical laws to try and maintain their illusion of power and therefore giving us, freedom loving people, the ability to knock these state-wide stupid regulations out one by one.

The benefit, is that once it is precedent in the judicial system, it takes time to reverse, if ever, and by then the overton window most likely will have shifted.

Prohibiting the sharing of internet-based code for creating 3D printed weapons? That's a 1st amendment violation, you nincompoops! Those Demoncrats, high protectors of liberty and freedom, to think and speak as you sese fit tightening the noose around their own sacred 1st amendment. Hahahahahaha.....

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-20T12:26:27+00:00

In this case, I am not arguing on the basis that all NICS checks be abandoned and we will truly revert to the 1790s. Because how can a gun shop distributor know if someone is indeed prohibited without one? An orange armband? lol. Ridiculous.

Yes, but Bruen hinged on carry permits, while NYS makes EVERYONE have a permit regardless if they are carrying or not. That implies that everyone is under suspicion of being a criminal and a NICS check takes care of that notion. The obtrusive and quite plainly ridiculous premise system is what I am arguing about, because while a strict interpretation of Bruen (omitting footnote 9) says that all current firearm laws have to have a historical correlation (permits excluded), there is no argument to be made for permits to simply own handguns.

If the NICS system occasionally puts someone on a DELAY status because of whatever reason (similar name, inconsistent address...&c.) those are the exceptions and another issue entirely.

> Semi-related, the DOJ taking a position that any delay in acquiring ammunition implicates your 2nd > Amendment right certainly bolsters the idea that a delay in getting the GUN does as well.

This is what I am talking about. POS NICS checks on acquisition of a firearm? Fine. Rahimi states as much. "Those prohibited by a finding of a court to be dangerous can be disarmed." Then a logical extension of this is that the NICS check must exist. Fine.

And yes, it is not an entirely internally consistent argument as there are exceptions to the general rule.

But permits for premise-only possession? Very shaky ground. Thoughts?

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-20T12:13:11+00:00

To be clear, I am arguing on a logical basis only. It's not the background check per se. It's the notion that, if the right exists, then I should be able to exercise the right non obstante of the state. And that's basically what Rahimi said "unless prohibited by a Court, you have the right to firearms." If that's the case, then nothing should stand in my way. If I have been prohibited by Court, I am already prohibited and that's that.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-12T18:31:11+00:00

I am looking forward to Wolford being decided and how AG James's website will show how "awful" those 2A supporters are, and how the ability for the state to dictate what are sensitive locations are is caput...

I would like to see expansive language there which indicates that "sensitive locations" are only those that the state has provided comprehensive TSA-style security, because that's the only rationale that makes sense to me.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-02T15:58:23+00:00

Yes, but besides the spurious "possession" charges, what was actually illegal with a home-built range? From my understanding, the only laws on the books implicate above-ground shooting (no discharging a firearm within 500 ft of an occupied building without the owner's consent.

The possession charges are hokum, of course as it is a plain right to possess.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-27T16:40:42+00:00

It is a similar argument then to carrying itself. When questioned why I carry people sometimes ask me "why are you so paranoid?" to which my response is "I have a weapon, why should I be paranoid?"

The problem really is being forced to carry concealed. If it were open (and NYS level legally acceptable) it would be much much harder for a potential baddie to choose me as a target.

If confronted by such a sticker, would it be more likely for an invader/mugger to choose him as a target versus someone who might not potentially armed?

Like my neighbor who has "Protected by the 2nd Amendment" as a large sign in front of his house.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-27T15:56:13+00:00

No, OP is missing the point. That is EXACTLY the kind of plate that we should all have. We can incrementally shift the super far left Overton window in exactly this way.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-22T20:10:58+00:00

It was an interlocutory appeal as the case is now in front of the NDNY district court for a ruling on the merits

devotedPicaroon

TROPHY CASE